E.Sivanraj v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE and W.M.P.(MD)No.10467 of 2020 E.Sivanraj : Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The District Employment Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar, 1/6

4.The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Aruppukottai, : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issue a of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent vide memo bearing e.f.vz;.l;o1/8314/2016 dated 17.07.2020 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Village Assistant or Office Assistant in anyone of the existing vacancies in Virudhunagar District on preferential basis on the ground of affected land owners belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes acquired for public purposes by the Government of the petitioner's land bearing Survey No.42/5C to an extent of 0.27.5 hectares (68 cents) situated at Thottiyankulam Village of Kariyapatti Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents : Mr.C.Satheesh, Government Advocate 2/6

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.07.2020 passed by the third respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for employment based on G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel - P) Department dated 28.12.1976, on the ground that the property was not acquired but the property was purchased by the respondents from the petitioner.

2.Acquisition is different from sale. The sale deed dated 21.01.2020 registered as Document No.164/2010, by which the petitioner had sold the property to the respondents has also been placed on record. Having sold the property, the question of claiming that the property was acquired by the respondents does not arise. Therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's request under the impugned order, since G.O.Ms.No.188, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel - P) Department dated 28.12.1976, does not have any applicability to the petitioner's case. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent under the impugned order.

3/6

3.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12.09.2025 Index :Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes/No MR 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

2.The District Employment Officer, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

3.The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Collectorate Campus, Virudhunagar, 4.The Special Tahsildar, Adi-Dravidar Welfare Department, Aruppukottai, 5/6

ABDUL QUDDHOSE.

, J.

MR 12.09.2025 6/6